G v R
[2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm)
SQD v QYP
21 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies had a disagreement and agreed to settle it in Paris. One company went to court in its own country instead. The other company tried to get a UK court to stop this, but the UK court said no because the agreement was to have the case in Paris, and Paris courts don't do that kind of thing. The UK court didn't want to interfere with the Paris courts.
Key Facts
- •SQD (Claimant) and QYP (Defendant) entered into an agreement with an English choice of law clause and an ICC arbitration clause in Paris.
- •QYP terminated the agreement, demanded payment, and initiated proceedings in its home country seeking payment and asset seizure.
- •QYP's claim argued the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to lack of access to justice in Paris.
- •SQD initiated ICC arbitration proceedings in Paris and sought an interim anti-suit injunction (ASI) and anti-enforcement injunction (AEI) from the English High Court.
- •The English High Court hearing took place without QYP's presence.
Legal Principles
Court powers to support arbitral proceedings
Arbitration Act 1996, s. 44
Court's general power to grant injunctive relief
Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 37(1)
Jurisdiction for ASIs in breach of arbitration agreements lies under s. 37 Senior Courts Act 1981, not s. 44 Arbitration Act 1996
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35
General principles for granting ASIs in support of arbitration
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 87
Need for caution when granting interim relief in support of foreign arbitration
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334
Determining the proper forum for an ASI when the seat of arbitration is abroad
Various cases discussed in the judgment, including Econet Wireless, Mobil Cerro Negro, Charlbury McCouat International, Malhotra v Malhotra, and U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines plc
The significance of the seat of arbitration, even when the governing law is English.
Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 and Kabab-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48
Outcomes
SQD's application for an interim ASI and AEI was dismissed.
The court found that granting the injunction would be inconsistent with the approach of French courts (the seat of arbitration) and potentially create a conflict. The court also considered the parties' deliberate choice of Paris as the seat, implying acceptance of the lack of ASIs in French law. The court found England was not the proper forum.